Contact: Sheila Little, 01962 847545, [email protected]

1 Executive Overview and Introduction

1.1 This report sets out the proposed Education revenue budget for 2005/06 and reports on the revised budget for 2004/05. It will be reported to the Executive Member for Education on 20 January and the Leader and Cabinet on 11 February 2005 to make final recommendations to County Council on 23 February 2005.

1.2 The strategy underpinning the Education budget continues the theme of the past two years: making the best use of all resources, including all grants, to achieve progress with the County Council's priorities of improving educational attainment and social development particularly for vulnerable children and those at most risk of disengagement. It is important at the outset to draw attention to the make-up of the Education budget and the allocation constraints on the County Council. The budget consists of two elements : a Schools Budget and an LEA Budget.

1.3 The Schools Budget for 2005/06 of £574m net consists mainly of the funding that will be allocated on the basis of the County Council's scheme of delegation to school governing bodies to spend according to local school level priorities. A small part of the Schools Budget covers central expenditure items. As these are predominantly demand led the challenge for the County Council is to contain expenditure whilst working with schools and other agencies to ensure strategies on, for example, pupil behaviour, to achieve the best outcomes for individual pupils and the local community. The budget proposals for 2005/06 set out in this report and developed with the Schools Forum, propose using available headroom funds to continue to address in particular the support needed for pupils at risk of disengagement, as well as providing further financial support to schools on their identified pressure areas.

1.4 The LEA Budget for 2005/06 of £63m supports those statutory duties falling on the County Council as the local education authority. The largest single element is home to school transport at £20m. Many of the services in this Budget have been subject to Best Value Reviews and provide direct support, several in partnership with other agencies, to pupils, schools and the wider community. Despite a thorough line by line review of the budget and achievement of year on year ongoing cost pressure absorption now totalling £1.6m, which enables many of the new cost pressures to be covered, the proposals in this report leave a net budget pressure of £1.12m. The service has separately identified cashable efficiency savings of £0.5m related to reduced insurance premiums. Offsetting these efficiency savings leaves a net unfunded pressure of £0.62m.

1.5 The Education revenue budget for 2005/06 contributes to all six corporate strategic aims. Most notably to Aim 1: maximising life opportunities; Aim 3: achieving economic prosperity and Aim 5: improving services.

1.6 The report is structured as follows:

· Section 2 details the corporate budget strategy.

· Section 3 sets out the budget guidelines defined by Cabinet.

· Section 4 up-dates the revised budget position for 2004/05.

· Section 5 details the base budget 2005/06.

· Section 6 summarises the education funding changes for 2005/06.

· Section 7 details the Schools Budget proposals for 2005/06.

· Section 8 details the LEA Budget proposals for 2005/06, including Standards Fund monies.

· Section 9 sets out the review of charges.

· Section 10 covers other expenditure.

· Section 11 considers mandatory awards.

· Section12 provides some staffing statistics.

· Section 13 summarises the business unit proposed budget position.

1 Budget strategy

1.1 The Cabinet has set a provisional budget strategy based on the following guidelines:

· For Education non-schools budgets, Environment, Policy and Resources and Recreation and Heritage services, the guidelines are at the level of the base budget, adjusted for inflation on the same assumptions made in previous budget forecasts - pay increases at 2.95% to reflect national agreements, prices at 2.5%, together with an allowance of 1.5% increase in the employers' contribution to the Local Government Pension Scheme.

· Schools formula spending share increase will be fully passported, matched by Government grant, as constrained by the Secretary of State's reserve power to require this outcome.

· Schools will be required to meet all cost pressures, demands, contingency, new pressures and priorities within these cash limited resources.

· The Social Care Executive Member is required to prepare separate budget proposals for children's services and other client groups. Options will be considered based on full, part and no passporting of the increase in formula spending share. The Executive Member will ensure that separate efficiency savings targets set by Government for Supporting People will be achieved without additional cross subsidy elsewhere within the older people and other adults budgets, or additional council tax support.

· All services (other than schools) are required to identify cashable efficiency savings of at least 1.25% (including the firm plans already made for SAP benefit realisation savings) on the basis that these savings could be used in final decisions to absorb pressures within the service or elsewhere, or to reduce the council tax (or any combination of these).

· Extra contingency provision will be made to match the commitments on waste management from new infrastructure costs, increases in volumes and effect of landfill tax on the private sector contract.

1.2 In arriving at the base budget Executive Members are required to ensure that:

· Income will be maximised in line with inflation.

· Any proposals for spending above the budget guideline are matched by efficiency savings or redeployment of resources.

· All proposals for additional spending, however financed, need to be accompanied by a summary business case containing clear financial and performance data setting out how performance will be improved and value for money achieved, and how it links to the key aims of the Corporate Strategy.

· Staffing implications of proposed budgets are consistent with the service's workforce plan.

1.3 Preliminary guidelines have also been set for 2006/07 and 2007/08 in order to provide services with a medium term financial planning framework within which to formulate 2005/06 budget proposals.

2 Budget guidelines

2.1 The budget guidelines were considered by the Cabinet on 13 December 2004. For this service, the provisional budget guideline for 2005/06 is £697.6m.

2.2 This report sets out the Education Executive Member's responses to the guidelines. The report:

· Reviews the revised budget for 2004/05 (as set out in Appendices 1 and 2).

· Reviews the 2005/06 base budget which totals £690.469m (as set out in Appendices 3(a) and 3 (b)).

· Identifies increases of £12.509m from the passporting of £26.624m in the Schools Budget and £1.12m net growth and savings proposals for the LEA Budget (as set out in Appendix 4(a) and (b)).

· Identifies cashable efficiency savings of £500k and non-cashable savings of £1.6m (as set out in Appendix 5).

· Reviews the charges made by this service (as set out in Appendix 6).

3 Revised Budget 2004/05

3.1 The cash limit for the revised budget 2004/05 as agreed by the Executive Member for the Education service on 9 December 2004 is £675.2m. The calculation is shown in Appendices 1(a) and 1(b).

3.2 A summary comparing the revised budget with the cash limit is set out in Appendices 2(a) and 2(b). This shows a minor projected overspend at the end of 2004/05 of £70,000, although through management action it is expected that the budget will balance at the end of the year. The main variations are set out below on the same basis as they were included in the report to the Education Policy Review Committee on 9 December 2004.

· School specific contingencies. + £120,000 (cash limit £2.5m)

The deficit on the Hawthorns school account when it closed (£120,000) falls to be funded from this contingency budget. The school has now been merged with Ashwood Education Centre to form `Basingstoke School Plus', and is being managed and accounted for within the Education Otherwise Than at School (EOTAS) budget from September 2004. The additional running costs for the remainder of 2004/05 are £70,000 and these are reflected in the projected costs of EOTAS. The overall effect of this restructuring is a budget pressure in 2004/05 of £190,000, split between the Schools contingency and EOTAS.

· Home to School Transport

(cash limit £19.5m)

Monitoring reports continue to indicate that the additional costs identified can be accommodated by the use of the specific contingency which is held for home to school transport. However, there remains significant pressure on this budget, particularly for the transport of children with special needs where cost pressures exceed inflation allocations and a further up-date will be provided in the next budget monitoring report.

· Inclusion (SEN)

(cash limit £18.55m)

Budget pressures on these services (i.e. Statements, Out-county Placements and EOTAS) continue and current forecasts are:

· Statements / Out-county Placements

(cash limit £13.1m)

As indicated in the earlier report, by use of Standards Funds, a balanced budget is still forecast for 2004/05 on this volatile budget which previously has shown some significant variations.

· Education Otherwise Than At School (EOTAS) +£141,000

(cash limit £5.84m)

Approximately half of this total relates to the creation of `Basingstoke School Plus' as set out above. Managers are continuing in their efforts to contain expenditure whilst dealing with intense service pressures; at present, EOTAS provision is running in excess of 50% over capacity.

· New Early Years Places -£560,000

(cash limit £18.7m)

The take-up of three- year- old places during the summer term once again reflected a level lower than that included in the budget. The saving against budget assumes a similar lower level of take up in the third term.

· Interest on School Balances -£87,000

(Non Delegated schools - miscellaneous)

Interest rate rises, together with a higher than anticipated level of primary school balances, have resulted in an increase in income from this source.

· Services to Schools and Support - ICT costs £564,000

It was reported on 12 October 2004, against a cash limit of £1.25m, that the outturn forecast indicated a significant projected overspend (£564,000). The reasons were set out in the report and an explanation given of why the overspend could not be reduced. The position remains unchanged and management action continues in order to minimise the final outturn overspend against this budget.

· Vosper Thorneycroft Southern Careers (VTSC) £331,000 (included in Continuing Education Budget)

As mentioned in the 12 October 2004 report, as a result of a change in service delivery arrangements for provision of the Connexions service which is outside the control of Hampshire County Council, VTSC will not be paying the annual dividend to the County Council in 2004/05 or future years. South Central Connexions Partnership is now delivering the service under arrangements which do not yield dividends.

Although premises and staffing costs relating to the Connexions contract have been recharged to the new organisation, there are on-going discussions to agree their liability for the IT costs relating to the service.

3.3 As set out in the table below, a combination of the general contingency budget (£376,000) and additional childcare grant from 2003/04 (£192,000) will be used to reduce the projected overspend to £70,000. All budget holders will continue to monitor expenditure closely and alert senior managers to any potential increases or savings opportunities, including scrutinising all vacancies before allowing appointments to proceed. This will apply across the whole department and be reviewed regularly by the Education Department Management Team.

Budget Description	Variation from Cash Limit £'000
School specific contingencies	120
Education Otherwise Than at School	141
New Early Years Places	-560
Interest on school balances	-87
Support Services - ICT costs	564
Vosper Thorneycroft Southern Careers	331
Other minor variations	129
Net pressures on Specific Budgets	638
To be funded by:
Additional Childcare Grant 2003/04	-192
General contingency budget	-376
Net Pressure on Cash Limit	70

4 Base Budget 2005/06

4.1 A base budget has been prepared which contains the current financial policies of the Council, in order to provide a starting point from which decisions can be made. The base budget for this service is £690.469m at outturn prices. Appendices 3(a) and 3(b) show the make up of the base budget.

4.2 Overall, the base budget includes a net increase in expenditure at constant prices of £6.394m as compared with the 2004/05 original budget. These are reflected in the 2005/06 base budget and the Education cash limit has been correspondingly adjusted:

5 Education funding changes 2005/06

5.1 The then School Standards Minister David Milliband announced the main features of school funding 2005/06 to Parliament on 13 July 2004. They are:

· A minimum funding guarantee (MFG) with a 4% per pupil increase for secondary and special schools with unchanging rolls.

· A minimum funding guarantee with a 5% per pupil increase for primary and nursery schools with unchanging rolls.

· A minimum increase in Schools Formula Spending Share (SFSS) of 5.5% per pupil with a national average increase of 7% per pupil.

· A requirement to passport the Schools Budget increase in full.

· A limit will continue to be placed on the rate of increase in Schools Budget central expenditure items, mainly SEN and Education Other wise Than At School.

· A second year of Transitional Support Grant (TSG) at half the 2004/05 level for 2005/06 only.

Minimum per pupil guarantee

6.2 The differential rate in the minimum funding guarantee is intended to reflect the greater costs of delivering the national workforce reform agenda (specifically the target of 10% planning, preparation and assessment time for teachers with effect from September 2005). The guarantee will allow a per pupil increase for each individual school with an amount of 4 or 5% in cash for fixed elements within delegated school budgets. The minimum guaranteed per pupil increase is therefore 4/5% over the 2004/05 budget. The consequences of this are:

· A school where pupil numbers stay the same will be guaranteed a 4/5% per pupil increase in its budget

· A school where pupil numbers will decline receives a funding increase of more than 4/5% per pupil to help cover fixed costs

· A school where pupil numbers are increasing will be guaranteed at least 4/5% increase for all their existing pupils and an overall per pupil increase of at least 3.9/4.9% respectively.

Central Spending Limit

6.3 As in 2004/05, there is a limit on the increase allowed in `central' spending within the Schools Budget. Central spending is the term used for expenditure from the Schools Budget, not delegated to Schools (as the Individual Schools Budget {ISB}) and includes spending on children in areas such as special education needs and excluded pupils. Central spending may not rise faster than spending on delegated schools' budgets. However, LEAs are able to apply to the Secretary of State for an increase in the limit.

6.4 An application was made successfully for 2004/05 because of significant cost pressures on the SEN budgets in 2003/04 and in 2004/05. For 2005/06 the pressures will be contained within the central expenditure limit and no application has been made.

Targeted transitional support grant

6.5 In July 2004, the DfES announced that Hampshire County Council will be in receipt of £3.455m transitional support grant (TSG) for allocation to schools in 2005/06, exactly half of the allocation received in 2004/05. The restrictions on the provision and allocation are the same as for 2004/05 and are summarised below:

· Passport the full increase in SFSS to the Schools Budget .

· Direct resources to schools' delegated budgets as far as possible (it is not acceptable to allocate grant using the local funding formula across all schools).

· Target the grant at schools in financial difficulty.

· Agree recovery plans with each recipient school.

· Have arrangements in place to monitor schools' use of the support and implementation of recovery plans.

· The up-dated Transitional Support Plan was submitted by 31 December 2004 with the support of the Schools Forum. The plan provides a review of the impact that TSG has made in 2004/05; a description of the criteria identified as the basis for allocation of the TSG in 2005/06; confirmation that the County Council will agree recovery plans with schools receiving grant and an outline of the way the County Council plans to monitor the implementation of plans, once agreed.

6.6 An up-date will be provided at the meeting if any response from the DfES has been received.

6.7 Schools Forum will give more consideration to the detailed allocations proposed and monitoring plans at its meeting on 22 February 2005.

6 Schools Budget proposals 2005/06

6.1 The County Council's assessed figure for the Schools Budget for 2005/06, with full passporting, totals £573.654m (net of grants and the Excellence in Cities allocation) and this is the figure that was notified to the Secretary of State in December 2004. This total incorporates all the expenditure on the Schools Budget including funds managed on behalf of schools by Policy and Resources e.g. repair and maintenance of buildings and capital expenditure met from revenue. The Policy and Resources element of the passported sum for 2005/06 is £10.033m which gives the Education service passported amount as £563.621m. The cost of continuing the existing provision into 2005/06 amounts to £535.501m, with a further £18.888m being required to cover future inflation and an estimated £2.769m to cover the remaining cost of the minimum funding guarantee. After the inescapable pressures on the `central' Schools Budget of £2.674m, an estimated balance (headroom) of £3.8m is available for other Schools Budget priorities. This is summarised as follows:

6.2 Schools Forum has had two budget meetings to discuss the 2005/06 Schools Budget. These were held slightly earlier than in previous years in an attempt to work to the earlier budget timetable proposed by the DfES. The Schools Forum's role is to advise the Education Executive Member on the Schools Budget.

6.3 Schools Forum met first on 10 November 2004 to understand the anticipated settlement outcome for the Schools Budget and to set out their priority areas for use of any headroom available from the passported sum. Their specific pressures were set out as:

· Secondary school exam fees - to match increases at school level in the number of pupil entries above that provided through the current funding formula.

· Workforce reform and specifically the impact of Planning Preparation and Assessment in Primary schools - to further assist towards all schools' implementation of the national school workforce re-modelling agenda.

· Final stage of the additional provision for MLD pupils in Special schools.

· Budget increases to meet price increases for Service Level Agreements (SLAs) for Legal Services with the impact of the DDA and for Education ICT.

· Business rates revaluation.

6.4 They also recognised and endorsed the pressures outside of ISB in the central expenditure areas for:

· Further inflation on early years places.

· EOTAS including additional external places and for the cost of Basingstoke School Plus.

· SEN budgets currently funded through Standards Fund which are in need of ongoing base budget provision.

6.5 At its further budget meeting on 16 December 2004 the full settlement details were available and the Schools Forum reviewed its priorities in the light of the revised budget position. It confirmed the priority areas set out in November, proposed allocations and agreed unanimously to recommend to the Executive Member that the remaining headroom be used to cover the following priorities:

· Workforce reform and Planning Preparation and Assessment (PPA) time

· Behaviour

· Single status for non teaching staff (Pay and Benefits)

· Integrated Children's Services

6.6 Its proposal was to allocate the remaining headroom in the following areas to address these pressures:

· Non-teaching staff (to assist towards the implementation of the single status agreement, meet ongoing work force reform pressures and developments related to pupil behaviour management initiatives including home/school link workers).

· SEN audit step 7 (to assist about 50 pupils with the most profound and life-threatening needs in SLD schools).

· SEN audit for schools (to support mainstream primary and secondary schools in better meeting the behavioural needs of challenging, vulnerable children and their families).

7.7 There was further discussion of the central expenditure pressures. In particular it was noted that whilst keeping within the central spending limit for 2005/06, there remain considerable pressures in these demand led service areas, especially SEN (£400,000) and EOTAS (£320,000). The SEN pressures will involve replacing accumulated Standards Fund contributions with ongoing base budget provision and the resulting Standards Funds can then be applied to short term preventative projects. The EOTAS pressures include £100,000 for additional external placement provision, £120,000 relating to Basingstoke School Plus and £100,000 for drug preventative measures. The drug preventative measures will involve the development of a new service team managed in EOTAS to help with preventative work, in partnership with schools and other agencies, for pupils at risk of disengagement because of drug related issues. The development of this service is seen as essential because of the loss of the Drug Action Response Team (DART) in 2004/05 as a result of Standard Fund ceasing.

7.8 In accordance with the consultation process with Schools Forum, it is therefore proposed that the Schools Budget headroom of £3.789m be allocated as follows:

Headroom proposals	£'000	£'000
ISB
Secondary schools exam entries	267
Additional PPA time for primary schools	330
Final stage of additional provision for MLD pupils in secondary special schools	160
Funding for SLA price increases	255
Business rates revaluation	620
Non teaching staff for all schools	850
SEN step 7 for SLD special schools	100
SEN audit for mainstream schools	300	2,882
Central expenditure
Under 5s provision for inflation and for new early years centre at Nightingales	187
SEN replacement of Standards Fund	400
EOTAS - additional external places, Basingstoke school plus and drug prevention service	320	907
Total headroom		3,789

7.9 In addition to headroom, schools will be allocated further funds from various Government grants as follows:

Government Grant	Allocation 2005/06	Increase from 2004/05 to 2005/06
	£'000	£'000	%
Standards Fund	35,548	1,315	4
School Standard Grant	20,618	794	4
Devolved Capital	16,574	436	2.7

7 Redeployment proposals, efficiency improvements and cost pressures 2005/06: LEA Budget

7.1 The Cabinet requires all services to consider and report on:

· efficiency improvements achieved in absorbing pressures and costs within the budget guidelines.

· the redeployment of any resources required to offset any new spending priorities, or inescapable budget pressures, or legislative requirements which otherwise cannot be met within their budget guidelines.

· the annual review of charges and the maximisation of income.

7.2 The main elements of the LEA Budget, totalling £61m (before inflation) are summarised below for information. When these costs are placed in context with other County Councils, the DfES benchmarking statistics show that Hampshire County Council has budgeted to spend £342 per pupil on LEA Budget activities in 2004/05 compared with the national average for County Councils of £405 per pupil.

LEA Budget			Base budget 2005/06
			£000			%
Home to School Transport (HTST)			20,197			33
	Youth and Community			8,364			14
		Strategic Management:
		· Premature retirements			2,663			4
	· Other - including insurance, corporate and Member support, statutory strategic and regulatory duties across the whole education service equating to around 1% of the total education budget.			7,469			12
	Standards Fund - includes all LEA grants			7,098			12
Special Education Needs (SEN) - including Education Psychology service, administration and monitoring of assessments			5,830			9
Access - including behaviour support plans, education welfare service, music service, asset management			5,329			9
	School Improvement - the core LEA role for schools			4,072			7
Total			61,022			100

8.3 The underlying education budget strategy for the past few years has enabled significant additional cost pressures to be contained. At service level each service reviews the efficiency and appropriateness of the services it provides and at the strategic level there is a clear focus on the high cost pressure areas particularly home to school transport and SEN. In total about £1.6m per year now accrues from this approach. Details are given in Appendix 5 and the main examples summarised below:

· The home to school transport invest to save strategy is now saving cost escalation of about £255,000 each year as well as enabling mainly special schools to receive additional funding of about £100,000.

· Effective scrutiny work on SEN pupil placements as part of the implementation of the agreed SEN policy is preventing expenditure on out-county placements of about £680,000 on average each year.

· Absorption of salary increment and re-grading costs amounting to around £410,000 each year although achieving this requires income generation which is nearing the maximum.

8.4 For 2005/06 the service started its budget process by identifying pressures and looking to redeployment opportunities or deferral of non-essential proposals. The main examples are detailed below:

· Flexibilities available to the County Council by virtue of its excellent rating have enabled £167,000 of Standards Fund grant to be deployed to maintain a number of initiatives essential to the corporate strategies e.g. Rights, Respect and Responsibilities project and Parent Partnership service.

· The ending of the Local Public Service Agreement (LPSA 1) income of £90,000 forced a review of the Education Welfare Service work in the Gosport area to reduce pupil absence and that work is now integrated with other EWS and schools based activities.

· The ending of financial support to 12 schools in rural areas to assist towards the transport costs of after-school activities will release £76,000 to meet cost pressures on the home to school transport budget.

· By not increasing community subsidy allocations to schools in line with inflation, £90,000 may to be used to resource community use of new facilities funded by National Lottery and District Council grant. This is in line with the approach taken in previous years to fund new developments across community education.

8.5 Despite all of the measures outlined above which have enabled significant cost pressures to be contained, compilation of the base budget has resulted in a net budget pressure of £1.12m on the LEA Budget to sustain the current level of service. The budget proposals set out below identify the main service pressures and developments for the LEA Budget for 2005/06. However, as the table in para 8.2 above shows, the scope for reductions to the LEA Budget without impacting directly on front line statutory services is extremely limited.

8.6 For 2005/06 the service has an efficiency target of £780,000 against which an annual contribution of £500,000 can be made through the reduced employer's liability insurance premium reflecting claims experience. (Refer to Appendix 5). Although no other savings are able to be offered at this stage, further work during 2005/06 will be progressed to develop medium and longer term plans to identify savings for future years.

Summary

8.7 The Education service has a track record of delivering efficiency savings with around £1.6m accruing annually as cost escalation avoidance on areas like home to school transport and SEN out-county placements. The service has absorbed £0.423m of budget pressures for 2005/06 by managing these within existing resources but has identified £1.12m of pressures for which no further savings can be found without involving cuts to services. In trying to address the target for cashable efficiency savings the service has identified £500,000 as a result of reductions in insurance premium. Off-setting these efficiency savings leaves a net unfunded pressure of £0.62m.

8 Review of charges

8.1 The service's 2005/06 revenue budget includes income of £2.75m from fees and charges. Details of the material headings are included in Appendix 6.

8.2 Discretionary charges are reviewed annually except when they are subject to agreements which cover longer periods when the review takes place at the end of the period of the agreement.

8.3 As the majority of charges are made by schools there is limited scope for generating additional income to the County Council. Schools continue to be encouraged to maximise the income through letting of facilities to the community and outside organisations. Decisions of the level of charges will take account of availability, demand and market rates.

9 Other expenditure

9.1 The budget includes some items which are not counted against the cash limit. This includes budgets for central departments' support services, except where they have been given to departments to buy services, and repair and maintenance of buildings. It also includes costs of member support within the Education budget which are rechargeable to the Policy and Resources budget for corporate and democratic core services. These have been excluded at this stage as the budgets are subject to Policy and Resources Executive Member's control and they have not yet been agreed. In the original budget they totalled £6.8m.

10 Mandatory Awards

10.1 The budget for mandatory awards for 2005/06 totals £0.15m. It reflects the residual costs of awards made prior to the transfer of financial transactions to the Student Loan Company. These awards are 100% grant aided and have no effect on the County Council's finances.

11 Workforce levels and costs

11.1 The workforce implications of the proposed budget are set out in Appendix 7. The 2005/06 base budget (excluding school staffing and trading units) supports a planned workforce of 599 full time equivalent (FTE) staff. This compares with the original estimate for 2004/05 of 670 FTE. The reduction of 71 FTE relates to the change in the service delivery arrangement for the provision of the Connexions service.

11.2 The proposals for growth and redeployment of resources across the entire education service (see Appendix 4 (a) and 4(b)) include proposals which would increase staffing numbers by 50 FTE (47 Schools Budget, 3 LEA Budget). However, the number of teacher posts will reduce by 63 FTE, reflecting the fall in pupil numbers, (56 in Primary schools and 7 in Secondary schools).

12 Business Units

12.1 A summary of the trading accounts of the eight business units is shown in Appendix 9. Six of the eight units (two are study centres) are covered by the new Service Level Agreements to operate from April 2005. School governing bodies made purchasing decisions during December 2004 and the outcome will be reported orally at the meeting. Initial analysis from the 430 school responses received at 4 January suggests that current business volumes will be broadly maintained. The forecast deficits for Education Financial Services and Education Personnel Services result from the planned use of accumulated business unit surpluses to provide additional ongoing support to schools to implement SAP modules fully. The Education ICT service is anticipating reducing its deficit and schools' purchasing decisions received to date are encouraging.

Recommendation

It is recommended that:

1 the report is noted.

2 comments from the Education Policy Review Committee Members are submitted to the Executive Member for Education for further consideration.

Section 100 D - Local Government Act 1972 - background papers

The following documents disclose facts or matters on which this report, or an important part of it, is based and has been relied upon to a material extent in the preparation of this report.

NB the list excludes:

Published works.

Documents which disclose exempt or confidential information as defined in the Act.

TITLE FILE